Professional Documents
Culture Documents
United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)
United States v. Williams, 4th Cir. (2002)
No. 02-4057
COUNSEL
Ann Briks Walsh, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Charleston,
South Carolina, for Appellant. J. Strom Thurmond, Jr., United States
Attorney, John M. Barton, Assistant United States Attorney, Columbia, South Carolina, for Appellee.
OPINION
PER CURIAM:
James H. Williams pled guilty to two counts of making and presenting false claims on Internal Revenue Service Forms 1041 in violation of 18 U.S.C. 247, 2 (2000). On appeal, Williams counsel has
filed a brief challenging: (1) the district courts failure to award an
additional point for acceptance of responsibility; (2) the obstruction
of justice enhancement to the offense level; and (3) the denial of his
motion for a downward departure. Williams has moved for leave to
file a pro se supplemental brief. We grant the motion for leave to file
a pro se supplemental brief. In his pro se supplemental brief, Williams
raises several non-meritorious issues. With respect to the issue of restitution, this Court vacates the judgment and remands to the district
court for the limited purpose that it enter a judgment reflecting the
amount of restitution imposed by the court orally at sentencing. In all
other respects, we find no reversible error.
A district courts decision to deny a reduction to the offense level
for acceptance of responsibility is reviewed for clear error. United
States v. Pauley, 289 F.3d 254, 261 (4th Cir. 2002). At sentencing,
Williams has the burden of showing he was entitled to the additional
one level reduction. United States v. Nale, 101 F.3d 1000, 1005 (4th
Cir. 1996). Because he failed to show his guilty plea was timely or
that he timely provided complete information to authorities, the district courts failure to order an additional one level reduction was not
clearly erroneous. See U.S. Sentencing Guidelines Manual 3E1.1(b)
(2000).
This Court reviews for clear error a district courts decision to
increase the offense level for obstruction of justice. United States v.
Sun, 278 F.3d 302, 313 (4th Cir. 2002). Under U.S.S.G. 3C1.1, a
two level increase is warranted if the defendant:
because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the
materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional
process.
VACATED AND REMANDED